The nice thing of these wrappers is that their properties have the same names than timeout objects properties, so you can still do oTimeOut.target = ... , or oTimeout.period = ...
Thank you (and Jakob and James!) for sharing your lingo. I'm curious about the use of the ancestor to store the reference to the timeOut object. Could it also be assigned to a standard property?
the ancestor idea is what make you understand that James and Jakob have gone through this script.
In fact you could use a standard property, but this would limit you, like for the period trick I stated before: in the wrapper script there's no period property defined, so that doing the oInstance.period directly affectc the ancestor (the timeout object) period property But when you use oInstance.target than you're working on the instance property, and keep intact the target property of the actual timeout object. So to sum up, using the timeout object as an ancestor really make the code smaller, cleaner and more efficient.
That makes sense. I thought must be a reason (aside from esthetics :), but didn't see it at the time.
Anyway I'm sure one could figure a better way, then I'd really luuUUuve to see it, because I'm totally addicted to these wrapping scripts ;�)
It would be difficult to improve upon! Thanks again.
-- Cole
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
